WWE exploits wrestling deaths...

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Because of the success of the Lex Luger/Miss Elizabeth episodes of WWE Confidential in the ratings, WWE is reportedly preparing a number of new pieces centered around controversial subjects.

 

As seen on Raw this week, WWE is promoting Confidential as a serious news show looking at real wrestling tragedies.

 

Among the subjects being worked on for future Confidential shows include: Brian Pillman, Curt Hennig, Davey Boy Smith, Rick Rude and Owen Hart.

 

credit: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

[Adam 0]

Thats just downright bad. You just don't do that.

[Guest croweater]

If the WWE exploit the Hart family again (includes DB smith and Owen) I think I'll be sick and will stop watching WWE altogether.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

It's another pathetic attempt to get ratings. Necrophelia, lesbians, now this. WWE is just gutter entertainment at the moment.

[Guest Raven_Effect01]

Watch TNA try to outdo WWE in the "This is going too far" department in the coming weeks since they've been trying to put on shows just as bad as WWE's lately.

[Guest BifEverchad]

Yeah, but you'll ALL watch. So shut the hell up.

[Guest JDMattitudeV1]

Here's a hint Vince, instead of trying shock tactic after shock tactic to try and win viewers back, why don't you remove your hack of a daughter from the creative team and employ people to write compelling television and push the people the fans want to see. This plan to exploit more deaths makes me want to vomit, you can have all the money in the world Vince but it won't buy you a single once of class.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

I won't watch.

 

Look at the ratings: nobody watches, so shut the hell up.

[Guest IB2BLACK]

how is that exploiting their deaths? By telling their stories? How a particular wrestler's death affected their family & friends?

[Guest The Amazing Rando]

Even telling their stories can be exploiting thier deaths...especially if they do not get family permisson to do so...

 

Tribute videos are one thing....this is completely different.

 

Pillman, Davey Boy, Hennig...all can be spun to make the wrestlers look severely at fault and horrible people because they did drugs. And with the recent rash of stupidity in the WWE...that's probably the first angle they are going to go for... which would totally tarnish any views they had of the wrestlers.

 

When Brian Pillman passed away...it was treated as a shock and a "he'll be missed" and everything it should have been shown as... but now going back to that and explaining that he did drugs and DRUGS ARE BAD.... it's like when he died JR should have stood up and screamed...

 

(imagine JR screaming about how drugs are evil and will send your soul to the fiery depths of hell)

 

This makes me sick. And it's not even that nobody watches it....it's that they'll advertise it to 3 million + people on RAW and SD...

[Guest BifEverchad]

how is that exploiting their deaths? By telling their stories? How a particular wrestler's death affected their family & friends?

Yeah, exactly IB2BLACK.

 

I'm sure all these people who are preaching their wannabee 'morals' of wrestling (which is just foolish) are the exact ones who watched all the other pieces of wrestlers of the past, the same as everyone else. They all watched Confidental with Davey Boy, Hennig, Elizabeth and Blassie. and they WILL watch future ones with all the others mentioned above.

 

They're all just trying to come off holier than thou and make themselves seem prim and proper towards 'Evil Vince' and his 'horrible' company. Now I'm not defending the company as a whole. But people who 'act' like that just for the purpose of doing so, are just sheep.

 

Sorry, but it has to be said.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

I'm no sheep. Hell, I like A-Train, but I know when something's not right. And this ain't right, folks.

[Guest BifEverchad]

I'm no sheep. Hell, I like A-Train, but I know when something's not right. And this ain't right, folks.

But you'll watch, right?

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

News shows do pieces like this all the time. I don't see how this is any different.

[Guest Anglesault]

Pillman, Davey Boy, Hennig...all can be spun to make the wrestlers look severely at fault

Well, they were. Their drug addictions played major, major parts in their deaths. In Brian's case that can't be denied.

[Guest Downhome]

My only problem with the 'Liz piece is that there wasn't even a cause of death given at the time that it was aired, that's why I was so pissed about that one. Well, that and their making it sound like Luger killed her.

 

For everyone else, I'm fine with it. The facts are out there on how they died, so what WWE puts out there should be a pretty cool rememberance deal and will inform everyone on how they died. Hell, I think their stories NEED to be put out there. Those looking to get into the industry need to hear these things, and it also reminds everyone just how "real" Pro. Wrestling is in the end.

 

I'm all for it.

[Guest Sturgis]

Well, that and their making it sound like Luger killed her.

If you think about it Luger DID kill Liz.

[Guest Alcohol Fueled]

That isn't exploiting anything. It's telling their story.

 

Jesus people, get that stick out of your asses. Doing a story or stories on a dead superstar isn't shocking. It's just a story. If you don't like it don't watch, it's just Confidential.

[Guest Downhome]

Well, that and their making it sound like Luger killed her.

If you think about it Luger DID kill Liz.

Oh my God, don't get me started with that bullshit.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

News shows do pieces like this all the time. I don't see how this is any different.

Yeah, but Confidential is not a news show. To do a serious program, you need a little something called credibility. And how do you attain credibility? By building a reputation as a thoughful well run program. Confidentail hardly falls into either category. It's a B show that specializes in fluff pieces and revisionist history (the WCW stuff).

Alos, there's the obvious conflict of interest. Do you think WWE will take any responsability for the deaths. Do you think they'll say "Due to Brian pillman's rigorous WWF imposed work schedule, he began to seek the comfort of..." They won't condemn the athletes outright, but I can garuntee that the assesment of the likes of DBS will sound a little like "Davey Boy Smith was a great person, but a troubled soul." "He struggled hard, but in the end his deamons overcame him." You see, above all, a good news program should be able to remain outside the situation. Tom Brokaw is alowed to show some emotion on the air, but in the end, his duty is to report and try to mantain a position of clarity. WWE, however, is right in the middle of the story. Think about it, would you let Amy Fischer host an expose on Joey Buttafucco? Would you let Vernon Jordan conduct the Hilary interview? Yes, those would lead to some interesting moments, but the show would rise no higher than a common tabloid. And that's all confidentail is, a tabloid. Even the name "Condiential" wreaks of smutty journalism. So to sum it up, WWE has a conflict of interest, namely protecting their own ass vs presenting a compelling piece of journalism, and they don't have the personel to pull off a compelling piece of journalism.

[Guest Nathan_Avara]

If were McMahon I would kill Confidential, and put a show showing old Nitros or maybe ECW shows. No one cares about most of the crap they put on there anyway. This just proves Vince McMahon is desperate for ratings.

[Guest Alcohol Fueled]

News shows do pieces like this all the time. I don't see how this is any different.

Yeah, but Confidential is not a news show. To do a serious program, you need a little something called credibility. And how do you attain credibility? By building a reputation as a thoughful well run program. Confidentail hardly falls into either category. It's a B show that specializes in fluff pieces and revisionist history (the WCW stuff).

Alos, there's the obvious conflict of interest. Do you think WWE will take any responsability for the deaths. Do you think they'll say "Due to Brian pillman's rigorous WWF imposed work schedule, he began to seek the comfort of..." They won't condemn the athletes outright, but I can garuntee that the assesment of the likes of DBS will sound a little like "Davey Boy Smith was a great person, but a troubled soul." "He struggled hard, but in the end his deamons overcame him." You see, above all, a good news program should be able to remain outside the situation. Tom Brokaw is alowed to show some emotion on the air, but in the end, his duty is to report and try to mantain a position of clarity. WWE, however, is right in the middle of the story. Think about it, would you let Amy Fischer host an expose on Joey Buttafucco? Would you let Vernon Jordan conduct the Hilary interview? Yes, those would lead to some interesting moments, but the show would rise no higher than a common tabloid. And that's all confidentail is, a tabloid. Even the name "Condiential" wreaks of smutty journalism. So to sum it up, WWE has a conflict of interest, namely protecting their own ass vs presenting a compelling piece of journalism, and they don't have the personel to pull off a compelling piece of journalism.

So by your logic the WWE/F is responsible for the deaths of Bulldog and Pillman. Did Vince hold their head to the mirriors and make them snort coke. Did Vince hold the needle while they pumped up on the juice? No. Both were grown men who made their own desisions. The only people to blame are the men who died themselves. Nobody made them take drugs. That was a desision they made own their own.

[Guest The Hollywood Fashion Plate]

News shows do pieces like this all the time. I don't see how this is any different.

Yeah, but Confidential is not a news show. To do a serious program, you need a little something called credibility. And how do you attain credibility? By building a reputation as a thoughful well run program. Confidentail hardly falls into either category. It's a B show that specializes in fluff pieces and revisionist history (the WCW stuff).

Alos, there's the obvious conflict of interest. Do you think WWE will take any responsability for the deaths. Do you think they'll say "Due to Brian pillman's rigorous WWF imposed work schedule, he began to seek the comfort of..." They won't condemn the athletes outright, but I can garuntee that the assesment of the likes of DBS will sound a little like "Davey Boy Smith was a great person, but a troubled soul." "He struggled hard, but in the end his deamons overcame him." You see, above all, a good news program should be able to remain outside the situation. Tom Brokaw is alowed to show some emotion on the air, but in the end, his duty is to report and try to mantain a position of clarity. WWE, however, is right in the middle of the story. Think about it, would you let Amy Fischer host an expose on Joey Buttafucco? Would you let Vernon Jordan conduct the Hilary interview? Yes, those would lead to some interesting moments, but the show would rise no higher than a common tabloid. And that's all confidentail is, a tabloid. Even the name "Condiential" wreaks of smutty journalism. So to sum it up, WWE has a conflict of interest, namely protecting their own ass vs presenting a compelling piece of journalism, and they don't have the personel to pull off a compelling piece of journalism.

I don't see the contradiction in having WWE do segments like this. VH1 features artists on 'Behind the Music' who had appeared on VH1 shows, and that's not considered to be a conflict of interest or exploitation. Ditto for E! and CMT, and nobody accuses them of being 'tabloid' programming.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

News shows do pieces like this all the time. I don't see how this is any different.

Yeah, but Confidential is not a news show. To do a serious program, you need a little something called credibility. And how do you attain credibility? By building a reputation as a thoughful well run program. Confidentail hardly falls into either category. It's a B show that specializes in fluff pieces and revisionist history (the WCW stuff).

Alos, there's the obvious conflict of interest. Do you think WWE will take any responsability for the deaths. Do you think they'll say "Due to Brian pillman's rigorous WWF imposed work schedule, he began to seek the comfort of..." They won't condemn the athletes outright, but I can garuntee that the assesment of the likes of DBS will sound a little like "Davey Boy Smith was a great person, but a troubled soul." "He struggled hard, but in the end his deamons overcame him." You see, above all, a good news program should be able to remain outside the situation. Tom Brokaw is alowed to show some emotion on the air, but in the end, his duty is to report and try to mantain a position of clarity. WWE, however, is right in the middle of the story. Think about it, would you let Amy Fischer host an expose on Joey Buttafucco? Would you let Vernon Jordan conduct the Hilary interview? Yes, those would lead to some interesting moments, but the show would rise no higher than a common tabloid. And that's all confidentail is, a tabloid. Even the name "Condiential" wreaks of smutty journalism. So to sum it up, WWE has a conflict of interest, namely protecting their own ass vs presenting a compelling piece of journalism, and they don't have the personel to pull off a compelling piece of journalism.

So by your logic the WWE/F is responsible for the deaths of Bulldog and Pillman. Did Vince hold their head to the mirriors and make them snort coke. Did Vince hold the needle while they pumped up on the juice? No. Both were grown men who made their own desisions. The only people to blame are the men who died themselves. Nobody made them take drugs. That was a desision they made own their own.

Vince distributed steroids to his workers at one point. Vince allowed the abuse in the locker room and did nothing about it. I've been on sports teams, no coach is completely oblivious to his players vices, and it's part of a coaches/managers/owners responsability to see that his people are not killing themselves. No Vince did not make the decisions for theses men, but he never discouraged it until the media and law cracked down on him. Also, if he knew that these men had probelms, and I believe he knew, he should have done something about it, and as a result, he has no business pointing a finger at any of these men. DBS and Brian Pillman both had issues, and when it comes down to sorting things out, they destroyed their own bodies, but Vince McMahon did nothing and at one point encouraged steroid use (and with bodies like Steiner on the roster he still does) so he has no business "reporting" on the abuse when he is right in the middle of it.

[Guest Alcohol Fueled]

Vince still owns the name and rights to those people's archives, so he can do whatever he wants. So he has all the business in the world.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

News shows do pieces like this all the time. I don't see how this is any different.

Yeah, but Confidential is not a news show. To do a serious program, you need a little something called credibility. And how do you attain credibility? By building a reputation as a thoughful well run program. Confidentail hardly falls into either category. It's a B show that specializes in fluff pieces and revisionist history (the WCW stuff).

Alos, there's the obvious conflict of interest. Do you think WWE will take any responsability for the deaths. Do you think they'll say "Due to Brian pillman's rigorous WWF imposed work schedule, he began to seek the comfort of..." They won't condemn the athletes outright, but I can garuntee that the assesment of the likes of DBS will sound a little like "Davey Boy Smith was a great person, but a troubled soul." "He struggled hard, but in the end his deamons overcame him." You see, above all, a good news program should be able to remain outside the situation. Tom Brokaw is alowed to show some emotion on the air, but in the end, his duty is to report and try to mantain a position of clarity. WWE, however, is right in the middle of the story. Think about it, would you let Amy Fischer host an expose on Joey Buttafucco? Would you let Vernon Jordan conduct the Hilary interview? Yes, those would lead to some interesting moments, but the show would rise no higher than a common tabloid. And that's all confidentail is, a tabloid. Even the name "Condiential" wreaks of smutty journalism. So to sum it up, WWE has a conflict of interest, namely protecting their own ass vs presenting a compelling piece of journalism, and they don't have the personel to pull off a compelling piece of journalism.

I don't see the contradiction in having WWE do segments like this. VH1 features artists on 'Behind the Music' who had appeared on VH1 shows, and that's not considered to be a conflict of interest or exploitation. Ditto for E! and CMT, and nobody accuses them of being 'tabloid' programming.

Actually, I consider E! only slightly above tabloids, same with Extra, Access Hollywood, and Entertainment tonight. the key difference is again, these were merely stations that ran the artists videos or gave info about their tours. None of these stations were active in the beavoir of the singers/artists/musicians /whatever you want to call them. I would object, for example, to Atlantic records sponsoring an expose on Led Zeps touring days, or a bands manager deciding that "The truth had to be told." Even ESPN walks a fine line when they do stories about Lawrence Phillips or other criminal athletes. The difference is A) respect for the subject matter, and B) a willingness to implicate themselves in the process, and show some remorse for their past actions.

[Guest fazzle]

But you'll watch, right?

No. Maybe if it was on some other show, but...Confidential? Fuck Confidential. I'm too busy actually doing stuff on Saturday nights, as are probably most people here.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

Vince still owns the name and rights to those people's archives, so he can do whatever he wants. So he has all the business in the world.

I am not talking about rights in the legal sense. of course vince McMahon CAN, and as a result he will. My point is that he has little sense of ethics, and little sense of morality.

[Guest Alcohol Fueled]

Vince still owns the name and rights to those people's archives, so he can do whatever he wants.  So he has all the business in the world.

I am not talking about rights in the legal sense. of course vince McMahon CAN, and as a result he will. My point is that he has little sense of ethics, and little sense of morality.

Then why are you wasteing your time arguing with me? Everybody knows Vince has no morals.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

Vince still owns the name and rights to those people's archives, so he can do whatever he wants.  So he has all the business in the world.

I am not talking about rights in the legal sense. of course vince McMahon CAN, and as a result he will. My point is that he has little sense of ethics, and little sense of morality.

Then why are you wasteing your time arguing with me? Everybody knows Vince has no morals.

Ok, let's get one thing straight. I was responding to CoreyLazurus on his point. You quoted me and debated my point. I responded and clarified my point. You switched topics on me and debated my questioning of vince Mchamhon. I clarified my statement, and now you draw out a "Why are we even debating" card?